Initially, a number of cases, brought as purported class actions or representative actions on behalf of individuals or entities, are pending that allege generally that Abbott and numerous other pharmaceutical companies reported false pricing information in connection with certain drugs that are reimbursable under Medicare and Medicaid and by private payors.

These cases, brought by private plaintiffs, the U.S. Department of Justice, State Attorneys General, and other state government entities, generally seek monetary damages and/or injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

Abbott has filed or intends to file a response in each case denying all substantive allegations.

The federal court cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts under the Multi-District Litigation Rules as "In re: Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL 1456."

MDL 1456 includes:

-- a purported class action case in which plaintiffs seek to certify a nationwide class of Medicare Part B consumers and two Massachusetts classes of third party payors and other consumers (filed in June 2003);

-- 11 State Attorney General and five state county suits, including a consolidated New York counties/City of New York suit (filed in June 2005); and

-- a civil whistle-blower suit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (filed in federal court in the Southern District of Florida in May 2006). Abbott has filed a motion to dismiss the Department of Justice case.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The consolidated suit is "In re Average Wholesale Price Litigation, Case No. 1:01-cv-12257-PBS," filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts under Judge Patti B. Saris.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces ERISA Violations Suit in Ill.--------------------------------------------------------------Abbott Laboratories remains a defendant in a purported class action alleging generally that the spin-off of Hospira, Inc., from the company adversely affected employee benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974.

The lawsuit was filed on Nov. 8, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and is captioned, "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc."

Plaintiffs are former Abbott employees who allege that their transfer to Hospira, as part of the spin-off of Hospira, adversely affected their employee benefits in violation of ERISA, and that in their transfer, Abbott breached a fiduciary duty to plaintiffs involving employee benefits.

Plaintiffs generally seek reinstatement as Abbott employees, or reinstatement as participants in Abbott's employee benefit plans, or an award for the employee benefits they have allegedly lost.

Abbott filed a response denying all substantive allegations. Plaintiff's motion for class certification on the breach of fiduciary duty claim is pending.

The suit is "Myla Nauman, Jane Roller and Michael Loughery v. Abbott Laboratories and Hospira, Inc., Case No. 1:04-cv-07199," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under Judge Robert W. Gettleman.

ABBOTT LABORATORIES: Still Faces Fenofibrate Marketing Lawsuit--------------------------------------------------------------Abbott Laboratories, Fournier Industrie et Sante, and Laboratoires Fournier, S.A. (Fournier) remain defendants in several lawsuits that were filed in either the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware or in the Central District of California, alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims in connection with the sale of fenofibrate formulations.

Twenty lawsuits, including 15 purported class actions, are currently pending. The plaintiffs in these cases seek actual damages, treble damages and other relief.

One of the purported class actions was filed by Paul T. Regan in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in July 2005.

The other 14 purported class actions and five individual actions are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware and were filed by:

Filing Date ----------- Alberto Litter August 2005

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund and Hector Valdes June 2005

Cindy Cronin July 2005

Diana Kim June 2005

Local 28 Sheet Metal Workers July 2005

Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co., Inc. June 2005

Meijer, Inc. June 2005

Painters District Council No.30 Health and Welfare Fund June 2005

Pennsylvania Employees Benefit Trust Fund June 2005

Philadelphia Federation of Teachers Health and Welfare Fund July 2005

Elaine M. Pullman June 2005

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc. June 2005

Charles M. Shain July 2005

Vista Healthplan, Inc. June 2005

CVS Pharmacy, Inc. August 2005

Impax Laboratories June 2005

Pacificare Health Systems, Inc. August 2005

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. June 2005

Walgreen Co. June 2005

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: No Ruling Yet on Westways World's Appeal -----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on plaintiffs' appeal regarding the summary judgment made by the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California in the class action, "Westways World Travel, Inc. v. AMR Corp., et al."

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Faces Lawsuit in Canada Over Cargo Surcharges ----------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. was named as a defendant in the purported Canadian class action, "McKay v. Ace Aviation Holdings, et al.," according to its Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

On Jan. 23, 2007, the company was served with a purported class action complaint filed against the company, AMR Corp., and certain foreign and domestic air carriers in the Supreme Court of British Columbia in Canada.

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants violated Canadian competition laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo shipments.

The complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages under Canadian law.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Anticipates Class Status Bid in "Kivilaan" -------------------------------------------------------------American Airlines, Inc. anticipates that by the first quarter of 2007, a motion for class certification will be filed in a gender discrimination suit brought by flight attendants against the company.

is defendant in a purported class action, "Kelley Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Inc.," which alleges gender discrimination, according to the company's Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit was filed on Sept. 16, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. A flight attendant who seeks to represent a purported class of current and former flight attendants brought it against the company.

Generally, suit alleges that several of the company's medical benefits plans discriminate against females on the basis of their gender in not providing coverage in all circumstances for prescription contraceptives. Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief and monetary damages.

The case has not been certified as a class action, but the company anticipate that a motion for class certification will be filed in the first quarter of 2007.

The suit is "Kivilaan v. American Airlines, Case No. 3:04-cv-00814," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee under Judge John T. Nixon with referral to Judge John S. Bryant.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Suits Over Surcharges Consolidated in Calif.---------------------------------------------------------------Numerous cases alleging violations of U.S. antitrust laws against American Airlines, Inc. and certain foreign and domestic air carriers have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Approximately 52 purported class actions have been filed in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges for passenger transportation.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California as "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, M 06-01793" on Oct. 25, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief.

The suit is "In re International Air Transportation Surcharge Antitrust Litigation, Case No. M:06-cv-01793-CRB," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under Judge Charles R. Breyer.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Appeals Court Affirms Nixing of "Harrington" ---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a purported class action over an alleged failure by American Airlines, Inc. to refund certain governmental taxes and fees collected by the company upon the sale of non-refundable tickets when such tickets are not used for travel.

In the matter, "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al.," which was filed Dec. 6, 2004 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs sought unspecified actual damages (trebled), declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, costs, and attorneys' fees.

The suit asserted various causes of action, including breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment against the company and numerous other airline defendants.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the case, which was granted. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the 1sst Circuit affirmed the dismissal, according to the company's Feb. 22 Form 10-K Filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Harrington v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-12558-NMG," filed in the U.S. District Court for District of Massachusetts under Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton.

On July 12, 2004, a consolidated class action complaint that was subsequently amended on Nov. 30, 2004, was filed against American Airlines and the Association of Professional Flight Attendants (APFA), the Union that represents the American's flight attendants.

While a class has not yet been certified, the lawsuit seeks on behalf of all of American's flight attendants or various subclasses to set aside, and to obtain damages allegedly resulting from, the April 2003 Collective Bargaining Agreement referred to as the Restructuring Participation Agreement (RPA).

The RPA was one of three labor agreements the company successfully reached with its unions in order to avoid filing for bankruptcy in 2003.

The suit alleges various claims against the Union and American Airlines relating to the RPA and the ratification vote on the RPA by individual Union members, including:

-- violation of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) and the APFA's Constitution and By-laws,

-- violation by the Union of its duty of fair representation to its members, violation by American of provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA) through improper coercion of flight attendants into voting or changing their vote for ratification, and

-- violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act of 1970.

On March 28, 2006, the district court dismissed all of various state law claims against American, all but one of the LMRDA claims against the APFA, and the claimed violations of RICO.

This leaves the claimed violations of the RLA and the duty of fair representation against American Airlines and the APFA (as well as one LMRDA claim and one claim against the APFA of a breach of the union constitution).

The company reported no development in the matter at its Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Marcoux et al. v. American Airlines Inc. et al., Case No. 1:04-cv-01376-NG-KAM," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Nina Gershon with referral to Judge Kiyo A. Matsumoto.

AMERICAN AIRLINES: Might be Named in Air Cargo Antitrust Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiffs in a consolidated suit alleging antitrust violations have not released any claims that they may have against American Airlines, Inc., raising the possibility that the company may later be added as a defendant in the litigation, according to its Feb. 22 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Approximately 44 purported class actions have been filed in the U.S. against the company and certain foreign and domestic air carriers alleging that the defendants violated U.S. antitrust laws by illegally conspiring to set prices and surcharges on cargo shipments.

These cases, along with other purported class actions in which the company was not named, were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York as "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, 06-MD-1775" on June 20, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking trebled money damages and injunctive relief. The company has not been named as a defendant in the consolidated complaint filed by the plaintiffs.

However, the plaintiffs have not released any claims that they may have against the company, and the company may later be added as a defendant in the litigation.

If the company is sued on these claims, it will vigorously defend the suit, but any adverse judgment could have a material adverse impact on the company.

The suit is "In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 1:06-md-01775-CBA-VVP," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge Carol Bagley Amon with referral to Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky.

ARKANSAS: Trial Begins in Teachers' Suit Against School District----------------------------------------------------------------A trial for a 2003 class action against the Van Buren School District over teacher pay for non-instructional duty time began last week in Crawford County Circuit Court in Arkansas, Rusty Garrett of The Fort Smith Times Record reports.

Attempts at negotiating a settlement for the case ended in Feb. 13, when the school board voted 6-0 against accepting an offer that would have involved a $400,000 payment by the district. Thus, the case was tried on Feb. 22 (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 16, 2006).

Judge Mike Medlock is presiding over the case, which was filed by former Coleman Junior High civics teacher Steve Jones against the school district on Aug. 22, 2003. The case was later certified as a class action.

In general, Mr. Jones claimed that teachers were not paid for non-instructional duty time that they were required to work. The case centers around passing periods and whether that is non-instructional time for teachers. It also involves before- and after-school duty and lunch duty.

Mr. Jones originally filed the lawsuit along with another teacher, Allen Wolfe, asking for payment to teachers who had worked uncompensated duty time. Mr. Wolfe settled his claim and was dismissed from the lawsuit (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 9, 2006).

Attorneys Brian Meadors and Mark Burnette, who both represent Mr. Jones, claim that Mr. Jones was unfairly dismissed from his position for making critical statements about the school district in violation of his civil rights.

In April 2006 the two claims were added to the lawsuit:

-- an appeal of Mr. Jones' termination under the Teacher Fair Dismissal Act; and

-- an allegation of a violation of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act.

Judge Mike Medlock granted class-action status to that case back in 2005, allowing about 500 Van Buren teachers to join the lawsuit.

The lawsuit covers any certified teacher working for the school district between August 1998 and present who has performed "uncompensated non-instructional duties."

Mr. Jones is asking for compensation for the duty time, pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorney's fees, costs and other relief to which he and the class are entitled. He is also asking for compensatory and punitive damages.

BALLY TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Nev. Securities Lawsuit for $1.25M--------------------------------------------------------------Bally Technologies, Inc., formerly known as Alliance Gaming Corp., has reached agreements, subject to court approval, to settle the consolidated federal securities class actions filed in 2004 against the company and certain current and former officers, as well as the shareholder derivative litigation filed in 2006.

Both actions are currently pending in the U.S. District Court, District of Nevada.

The cost of the settlement to the company will be $1.25 million. Such costs have been accrued in the company's financial statements for the quarter ended September 30, 2005.

In addition to certain governance actions the company has agreed to undertake, the company's directors and officers insurer will also contribute approximately $14.75 million for a total of $16.0 million in cash, plus certain interest, to settle the securities class action and derivative litigation.

In June and July 2004, putative class actions were filed against Bally and its officers, Robert Miodunski, Robert Saxton, Mark Lerner and Steven Des Champs in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

The nearly identical complaints alleged violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, stemming from revised earnings guidance, declines in the stock price and sales of stock by insiders. The complaints sought damages in unspecified amounts.

The court granted the plaintiffs' unopposed motions to consolidate the cases and to appoint a lead counsel and a lead plaintiff, and the plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, all as is customary in such cases. Bally and the other defendants have moved to dismiss the complaint.

Thereafter, activity in the case was suspended and the parties participated in a mediation process.

The first identified complaint is "Tyler, et al. v. Alliance Gaming Corp., et al., Case No. 04-CV-821," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Kent J. Dawson.

These lawsuits have been filed on behalf of all those who acquired common shares (or installment receipts) in Boliden Ltd., as offered by a prospectus dated June 10, 1997, in one of the provinces of Canada other than New Brunswick or Alberta, and retained all or part of these shares on April 25, 1998.

In these lawsuits, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants breached provincial securities statutes concerning the disclosure of information in the Prospectus related to a tailings dam at Los Frailes, Spain, which collapsed on April 25, 1998.

The amended class certified by the British Columbia Supreme Court covers persons resident in that province as of February 24, 2000.

The class definition certified by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice covers all other persons, except persons in the British Columbia class.

Collectively, these class definitions cover persons who:

(a) acquired common shares of Boliden Limited (the "Common Shares") as a result of a trade in one of the provinces of Canada other than New Brunswick or Alberta, the jurisdiction of such trade being the jurisdiction where the registrant (broker) who received the buy order relating to the acquisition was located, or where a "trade", as defined in the applicable jurisdiction, occurred;

(b) acquired the Common Shares:

(i) as offered by the Prospectus from an underwriter involved in the initial public offering of the Common Shares (the "IPO"); or

(ii) in the case of Common Shares acquired as a result of a "trade" in Manitoba, acquired the Common Shares either as offered by the Prospectus from an underwriter involved in the IPO or on the secondary market; and

(c) retained all or part of the Common Shares on April 25, 1998.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the settling defendants will pay CA$1 million, plus certain notice costs, in full and final settlement of all claims associated with the lawsuits.

Due to the administrative expense of distributing the net settlement funds (after fees, disbursements and expenses) to individual class members, no direct compensation will be paid to any class members in this settlement.

Instead, the net settlement funds will be paid to charitable and non-profit organizations appropriate to the allegations in the lawsuits, to be applied to activities across Canada that are reasonably expected to indirectly benefit the Class in the future.

These proposed organizations are the Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto, the Sauder School of Business, University of British Columbia, the Consumers' Association of Canada, and the Small Investors' Protection Association.

In addition, the courts have approved payment of legal fees to Class Counsel of 25% of the settlement proceeds available for distribution to the cy pres recipients, with disbursements assessed.

The defendants deny any liability and deny that any plaintiff or any class member is entitled to any relief. The courts have not ruled on the merits of the plaintiffs' claims or the defendants' defences.

CALIFORNIA: Deputy Sheriff's FLSA Violation Lawsuit Certified-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted preliminary certification to the case "Reed v. County of Orange et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-01103-CJC-AN."

The case can now proceed as a collective action on behalf of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs below the rank of sergeant who were improperly compensated for the time spent performing required and integral pre-shift and post-shift activities.

In 2005, Castle, Petersen & Krause, LLP partner Gregory G. Petersen, joined by Herbert Hafif of the Law Offices of Herbert Hafif, filed the suit on behalf of Margaret Reed -- a Deputy Sheriff at the Orange County Central Jail Complex -- and other deputies seeking to recover unpaid overtime wages.

The deputies contend that the Orange County Sheriff's Department required them to work overtime without compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The lawsuit asserts that the County failed to properly compensate the deputies for the time spent performing required and integral pre-shift and post-shift activities such as attending briefings, court hearings, collecting and maintaining protective gear and specialized equipment, and other tasks benefiting the Orange County.

The court has determined that a Notice of a Collective Action will be sent to current and former sheriff's deputies who can now opt-in to the Reed lawsuit as a class action.

The parties are finalizing the text of the Notice, which is expected to be sent out within the next month.

The suit is "Reed v. County of Orange et al., Case No. 8:05-cv-01103-CJC-AN," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California under Judge Cormac J. Carney, with referral to Judge Arthur Nakazato.

CANADA: Pictou Plaintiffs' Lawyer Files Notice in Hepatitis Suit---------------------------------------------------------------- The lawyer of four plaintiffs, who recently settled out-of-court a suit against the Canadian Red Cross Society, filed a notice of discontinuation in Nova Scotia Supreme Court in Pictou County after his clients accepted compensation under a class action, The Chronicle Herald reports.

The plaintiffs are Pictou County residents. They are George W. Hughes of New Glasgow, Josephine Crowther of Westville, Kathleen M.J. Hayman of Pictou County and David S. MacDonald of Eden Lake. In documents filed between 1996 and 1999, the plaintiffs claimed they tested positive for hepatitis C after receiving transfusions of infected blood from the Red Cross in the 1980s while patients at Aberdeen Hospital in New Glasgow and Victoria General Hospital in Halifax, according to the report.

They sued the Red Cross, the hospitals, and 10 provincial attorneys general and the federal attorney general for not properly regulating the Red Cross.

Representing them is Jamie MacGillivray.

Canada is granting approximately $1 billion in compensation to about 5,500 "forgotten victims" of the country's contaminated blood supply (Class Action Reporter, July 27, 2006).

Class Actions

In April 1998, the Ontario Hemophilia Plaintiffs commenced Action No. 98-CV-146405 in the Ontario Court (General Division), at Toronto, against the Red Cross and Canada over the spread of hepatitis C through the government's blood system.

In May 1998, the British Columbia Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced Action No. A981187 in the Vancouver Registry of the Supreme Court of British Columbia against the Red Cross and Canada.

In the same month, the Quebec Hemophilia Plaintiff commenced Action No. 500-06-000068-987 in the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec for the District of Montreal against the CRCS, Canada and Quebec.

In 1998, the government granted $1.1 billion payout to hepatitis C victims between 1986 and 1990. It then limited the compensation, saying there was no reliable test in place before 1986 to screen out potentially deadly virus.

On March 9, 2000, the courts appointed Crawford Adjusters Canada -- http://www.hepc8690.com/-- to act as Administrator of the 1986-1990 Hepatitis C Class Actions Settlement.

In recent years, evidence emerged that Canada could have conducted testing earlier.

On Nov. 22, 2004, the Federal Minister of Health announced Canada's intention to "enter into discussions on options for financial compensation to people who were infected with hepatitis C through the blood system before Jan. 1, 1986 and after July 1, 1990."

In April 2005, the government decided to extend financial help to victims who became ill before 1986 and after 1990.

CANADA: Quebec Prepares CA$13M Payment for Private Abortions ------------------------------------------------------------The government of Quebec is preparing to start paying more than CA$13 million to the women of Quebec who won a class action over supplementary fees they were forced to pay for abortions between 1999 to 2006, the Montreal Gazette reports.

The suit was filed in May 2002 on behalf of the Association for Access to Abortion, a group set up to represent claimants and lobby for changes to the way abortions are managed in Quebec.

It principally covers claims for abortions completed in the first 13 weeks of a pregnancy. The lawsuit applied to about 45,000 women who paid $200-$300 to have abortions outside of the hospital system.

In August 2006, Quebec Superior Court Justice Nicole Benard ordered the government of Quebec to pay more than CA$13 million to the women of Quebec who had to pay to obtain an abortion (Class Action Reporter, Aug. 21, 2006).

The court concluded that the Quebec government violated its own legislation by paying only partially for abortions.

Abortions are covered under the Quebec Health Insurance Act, and for many years, women who require an abortion have had to pay to obtain it when delivered in certain women's or private clinics.

The judge has ordered the government to deposit the award money with a financial institution.

To receive payment, a claim must be submitted by Sept. 7. If the claim is accepted, a check will be sent by Feb. 8, 2008.

CMS ENERGY: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Remand "Breckenridge" ------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado has yet to rule on a motion seeking for the remand of the class action complaint, "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC and BBD Acquisition Co. v. Oneok, Inc., et al.," back to Colorado state court.

The suit was brought on behalf of retail direct purchasers of natural gas in Colorado, and was filed in Colorado state court in May 2006.

Defendants, including CMS Energy Corp., CMS Field Services Inc., and CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. are alleged to have violated the Colorado Antitrust Act of 1992 in connection with their natural gas price reporting activities. Plaintiffs are seeking full refund damages.

The case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on June 12, 2006 and a conditional transfer order transferring the case to the Multidistrict litigation proceeding was entered on June 27, 2006.

Plaintiffs are seeking to have the case remanded back to Colorado state court, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Breckenridge Brewery of Colorado, LLC et al. v. Oneok Inc. et al.," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado under Judge Robert E. Blackburn with referral to Judge Michael E. Hegarty.

CMS ENERGY: Nev. Natural Gas Suit Ruling Still Under Appeal-----------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal regarding the order by the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada to dismiss a suit by Texas-Ohio Energy, Inc. against CMS Energy Corp. and several other defendants in relation to the sale of natural gas in the U.S.

Texas-Ohio Energy filed a putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in November 2003 against a number of energy companies engaged in the sale of natural gas in the U.S., including CMS Energy.

The complaint alleged defendants entered into a price-fixing scheme by engaging in activities to manipulate the price of natural gas in California. The complaint alleged violations of the federal Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California Business and Professions Code relating to unlawful, unfair and deceptive business practices.

In April 2004, a Nevada Multidistrict Litigation Panel ordered the transfer of the Texas-Ohio case to a pending MDL matter in the Nevada federal district court that at the time involved seven complaints originally filed in various state courts in California.

These complaints make allegations similar to those in the Texas-Ohio case regarding price reporting, although none contain a federal Sherman Act claim. In November 2004, those seven complaints, as well as a number of others that were originally filed in various state courts in California and subsequently transferred to the MDL proceeding, were remanded back to California state court.

The Texas-Ohio case remained in Nevada federal district court, and defendants, with CMS Energy joining, filed a motion to dismiss.

The court issued an order granting the motion to dismiss on April 8, 2005 and entered a judgment in favor of the defendants on April 11, 2005.

Texas-Ohio has appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The company reported no development on the case at its Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada under Judge Philip M. Pro with referral to Judge Peggy A. Leen.

CMS ENERGY: Calif. Natural Gas Suit Ruling Still Under Appeal-------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has yet to rule on an appeal against the orders by the U.S. District Court for the District of California to dismiss a consolidated antitrust class action that names CMS Energy Corp. and several other defendants in relation to the sale of natural gas in the U.S.

The suits all make allegations similar to those in the Texas-Ohio case, now under the caption, "In Re: Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 2:03-cv-01431-PMP-PAL MDL-1566."

Specifically, the suits claim price manipulation and seek similar relief. They were originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California in September 2004, November 2004 and December 2004, respectively.

The Fairhaven and Abelman Art Glass cases also include claims for unjust enrichment and a constructive trust. The three complaints were filed against CMS Energy and many of the other defendants named in the Texas-Ohio case.

The Fairhaven, Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass cases have been transferred to the MDL proceeding, where the Texas-Ohio case was pending.

Pursuant to stipulation by the parties and court order, defendants were not required to respond to the Fairhaven, Utility Savings and Abelman Art Glass complaints until the court ruled on defendants' motion to dismiss in the Texas-Ohio case.

CMS ENERGY: Court Denies Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand "Learjet"---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas refused to grant a motion seeking to remand the putative class action, "Learjet, Inc., et al. v. Oneok, Inc., et al." to state court.

On Nov. 20, 2005, CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. were served with a summons and complaint that named CMS Energy Corp., CMS MST and CMS Field Services, Inc. as defendants in the suit.

Similar to the other actions that have been filed, the complaint alleges that during the putative class period, Jan. 1, 2000 through Oct. 31, 2002, defendants engaged in a scheme to violate the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act by knowingly reporting false or inaccurate information to the publications, thereby affecting the market price of natural gas.

Plaintiffs, who allege they purchased natural gas from defendants and other for their facilities, are seeking statutory full consideration damages consisting of the full consideration paid by plaintiffs for natural gas.

On Dec. 7, 2005, the case was removed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas and later that month a motion was filed to transfer the case to an MDL proceeding in Nevada.

On Jan. 6, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to Kansas state court. On Jan. 23, 2006, a conditional transfer order transferring the case to the MDL proceeding in Nevada was issued.

On Feb. 7, 2006, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the conditional transfer order. The court issued an order dated Aug. 3, 2006 denying the motion to remand the case to Kansas state court.

The company reported no material development on the case at its Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

The suit is "Learjet, Inc et al. v. Oneok, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:05-cv-02513-CM-JPO," filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas under Judge Carlos Murguia with referral to James P. O'Hara.

Filed in January 2005, the class action complaint was brought on behalf of retail and business purchasers of natural gas in Tennessee.

The complaint contains claims for violations of the TennesseeTrade Practices Act based upon allegations of false reporting of price inFormation by defendants to publications that compile and publish indices of natural gas prices for various natural gas hubs.

On Aug. 10, 2005, certain defendants, including CMS MST, filed a motion to dismiss and CMS Energy and CMS Field Services filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Defendants attempted to remove the case to federal court, but it was remanded to state court by a federal judge.

On Feb. 2, 2007, the state court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

CMS ENERGY: Agrees to Settle Mich. Securities Suit for $200M------------------------------------------------------------ CMS Energy Corp. reached a tentative settlement for two class actions filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging violations of securities laws, according to the company's Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

Beginning in May 2002, a number of complaints were filed against CMS Energy, Consumers Energy Co., and certain officers and directors of CMS Energy and its affiliates in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.

The cases were consolidated into a single lawsuit (Shareholder Action), which generally seeks unspecified damages based on allegations that the defendants violated U.S. securities laws and regulations by making allegedly false and misleading statements about CMS Energy's business and financial condition, particularly with respect to revenues and expenses recorded in connection with round-trip trading by CMS Marketing, Services and Trading Co. (CMS MST).

In January 2005, the court granted a motion to dismiss Consumers Energy and three of the individual defendants, but denied the motions to dismiss CMS Energy and the 13 remaining individual defendants.

In March 2006, the court conditionally certified a class consisting of "all persons who purchased CMS Common Stock during the period of Oct. 25, 2000 through and including May 17, 2002 and who were damaged thereby."

The court excluded purchasers of CMS Energy's 8.75 percent Adjustable Convertible Trust Securities (ACTS) from the class and, in response, a new class action was filed on behalf of ACTS purchasers (ACTS Action) against the same defendants named in the Shareholder Action.

On Jan. 3, 2007, CMS Energy and other parties entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated Dec. 28, 2006, subject to court approval, regarding settlement of the two class actions.

The settlement was approved by a special committee of independent directors and by the full board of directors. Both judged that it was in the best interests of shareholders to eliminate this business uncertainty.

The MOU is expected to lead to a detailed stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the assigned federal judge and the affected class in the first quarter of 2007.

Under the terms of the MOU, the litigation will be settled for a total of $200 million, including the cost of administering the settlement and any attorney fees the court awards.

CMS Energy will make a payment of approximately $123 million plus an amount equivalent to interest on the outstanding unpaid settlement balance beginning on the date of preliminary approval of the court and running until the balance of the settlement funds is paid into a settlement account.

Out of the total settlement, CMS Energy's insurers will pay approximately $77 million directly to the settlement account. CMS Energy took an approximately $123 million pre-tax charge to 2006 earnings in the fourth quarter. In entering into the MOU, CMS Energy makes no admission of liability under the Shareholder Action and the ACTS Action.

COVERALL NORTH: Franchisees File Contract Breach Suit in Mass.--------------------------------------------------------------Coverall North America Inc. is facing a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts alleging "systemic misrepresentations and breaches of contract" with cleaning service franchises, the Boca Raton News reports.

accuse the firm of selling cleaning franchises while "knowing it does not have sufficient business to satisfy its obligations under its franchise agreements."

The suit was brought "on behalf of workers who have performed cleaning services for defendant Coverall North America."

According to the suit, "individuals purchase these franchises for substantial sums of money based on Coverall's misrepresentations about the guaranteed amount of monthly income the franchises will provide."

Mr. Awuah alleges he paid a $14,000 franchise fee and was promised $3,000 a month in business, "but he typically received less than $1,300 per month during his time working with Coverall."

The suit claims Ms. Pineda paid $12,000 for a franchise fee and was promised $1,300 a month income, "but she received less than $500" while working for the firm. The others also said they did not earn what they were told they'd make.

Further, the suit alleges that Coverall violates the "form franchise agreement" by taking accounts away "without warning and for no justifiable reason."

It also claims the firm gives "no opportunity to correct or challenge alleged deficiencies in workers' performance."

The litigation also takes Coverall to task for printing the franchise agreement "exclusively in English, in highly technical and confusing language."

-- rescission of the written contracts between Coverall and the plaintiff and class members, in whole or in part; -- restitution for all wages, overtime, and other employment-related benefits that are owed to the plaintiff and class members;

-- statutory trebling of all wages, overtime, and other employment-related benefits that are owed to the plaintiff and class members;

-- all other damages to which the plaintiff and class members may be entitled under the above-referenced statutes and common law; and

-- any other relief to which the plaintiff and class members may be entitled.

Jacqueline Vlaming, vice president and general counsel for Coverall, told the Boca Raton News she hasn't had the opportunity to review the case yet. However, she emphasized that the company "fulfills our obligations," according to the report.

She also noted that the lawsuit was filed by the same firm in Boston that represented several other aggrieved franchisers. Coverall settled that case, but Ms. Vlaming felt, "It was a mistake." As to the current litigation, she said, "We're going to the mat with it."

DAIEI TRADING: Recalls Itomo Mame Mixes Over Undeclared Peanuts---------------------------------------------------------------Daiei Trading-Chicago-Co., Inc. of Carol Stream, Illinois is recalling 8.8 oz packages of Bean Cracker, "Itomo Mame Mix" because it contains undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume the product.

The product comes in a 8.8 ounce, clear plastic package, item number 22-3163, UPC coded 784145220251. All lots of this product are being recalled.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the peanut-containing product was distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of peanuts. Subsequent investigation indicates the problem was caused by the use of labels that did not list peanuts as an ingredient.

Consumers who have purchased 8.8-ounce packages of the Bean Cracker, "Itomo Mame Mix" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 630-752-0089.

DELPHI CORP: Judge Rosen Grants Shareholders Access to Docs-----------------------------------------------------------Judge Gerald Rosen of the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Michigan has permitted Delphi Corp. shareholders to examine sensitive documents which Delphi provided to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice, and other federal agencies in connection with numerous financial fraud lawsuits filed against the company and certain of its former executives, Margaret Cronin Fisk of Bloomberg News reports.

The Delphi shareholders filed a class action in theMichigan District Court against Delphi and its officers and directors in March 2005 after the company reported a $200,000,000 overstatement in 2000 cash flow from operations and a $61,000,000 overstatement in 2001 pre-tax income. Among the Delphi executives charged by the shareholders were former ChiefExecutive Officer J.T. Battenberg III and former Chief FinancialOfficer Alan Dawes.

Delphi spokeswoman Lindsey Williams told Bloomberg News that the company "will abide by the terms of the order and provide the necessary documents." No timetable for Delphi to provide the documents has been set. (Delphi Bankruptcy News, Issue No. 58Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., http://bankrupt.com/newsstand/or 215/945-7000).

Case Background

On Sept. 23, 2005 securities actions filed against the company were consolidated before one judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

On Sept. 30, 2005, the court-appointed lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated class action complaint on behalf of a putative class consisting of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired publicly-traded securities of the company, including securities issued by Delphi Trust I and Delphi Trust II, during a putative class period of March 7, 2000 through March 3, 2005.

The amended securities action names several new defendants, including Delphi Trust II, certain former directors, and underwriters and other third parties, and includes securities claims regarding additional offerings of Delphi securities.

The securities actions consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (and a related securities action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida concerning Delphi Trust I) were subsequently transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan as part of the Multidistrict Litigation.

The action is stayed against the company pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code, but is continuing against the other defendants. The defendants have filed motions to dismiss the amended securities action.

The securities suit has been consolidated with ERISA and derivative litigations against the company.

The case is "Delphi Corp. Securities, Derivative and 'ERISA' Litigation, MDL-1725, Case No. 2:05-md-01725-GER," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan under Judge Gerald E. Rosen.

FIJI: Interim Finance Minister Sues for Unpaid Entitlements----------------------------------------------------------- The Suva High Court consolidated a claim filed by Fiji Labour Party leader and minister of finance in the current interim administration, Mahendra Chaudhry, with a class action he brought in relation to a 2000 Speight coup, Radio New Zealand reports.

Mr. Chaudhry is claiming entitlements supposedly owed to him by the state after he was deposed as prime minister in the coup. Radio New Zealand reports the claim is more than $60,000; Fiji Live reports it's more than $100,000.

Mr. Chaudhry is seeking benefits and other related emoluments supposedly owed to him as prime minister from August 2000 to September 2001 when general elections were held. The legal action follows after the Fiji Court of Appeal ruled that the coup was unlawful and Mr. Chaudhry was still the legal prime minister until the 2001 general election.

The suit is directed against the then permanent secretary of finance. The class action also names as plaintiffs other deposed members of the Labour coalition government who were held hostage during the 2000 coup. They are seeking compensation for their overthrow after serving only 12 months of their 5-year parliamentary term.

The court is expected to set a date in March to hear the case, according to the reports.

HARTFORD FIRE: Ore. Court Okays Credit Scoring Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------Judge Anna Brown of the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon formally approved a nationwide multi-million-dollar class action settlement between Hartford Fire Insurance Co. and more than 700,000 of its policyholders.

Originally filed in 2001, policyholders alleged that Hartford Fire and its subsidiaries failed to provide notice as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act when it charged customers more for insurance based on information in their credit reports.

If the policyholders had been able to prove at trial that the alleged violations were willful, each policyholder might have been entitled to recover between $100 and $1,000 in statutory damages.

Under the approved settlement, every qualified class member that submits a timely claim form will receive a payment of at least $150. Claim forms will be mailed to the appropriate class members within 60 days, unless an appeal is filed.

Hartford Fire also agreed to an injunction requiring it to use a revised adverse action notice form in compliance with the governing law in the Ninth Circuit.

The Oregon District Court initially ruled that Hartford Fire had complied with the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Hartford Fire violated the adverse action notice provisions of the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and remanded the case to the Oregon District Court for a determination of whether Hartford Fire acted willfully.

Hartford Fire filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the Ninth Circuit's opinion. That petition is currently pending.

Related cases against Farmers, Safeco, State Farm and GEICO were pending at the time the Hartford Fire case was settled. Two of the related cases (Safeco and GEICO) were accepted for consideration by the U.S. Supreme Court this term. Arguments in those cases took place on Jan. 16, 2007.

The suit is "Rausch et al. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Incorporated et al., Case No. 3:01-cv-01529-BR," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon under Judge Anna J. Brown.

HARTFORD LIFE: Faces Multidistrict Litigation in N.J. Court-----------------------------------------------------------The Hartford Life Insurance Co. was named as a defendant in a multidistrict litigation pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in relation to its property-casualty insurance and group benefits products, according to its Feb. 23 Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2006.

There are two consolidated amended complaints filed in the multidistrict litigation, one related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of property-casualty insurance and the other related to alleged conduct in connection with the sale of group benefits products. The company and several of its subsidiaries are named in both complaints.

The actions assert, on behalf of a class of persons who purchased insurance through the broker defendants, claims under the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, state law, and in the case of the group benefits complaint, claims under Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

The class period alleged is 1994 through the date of class certification, which has not yet occurred.

The Hartford also has been named in two similar actions filed in state courts, which the defendants have removed to federal court. Those actions currently are transferred to the court presiding over the multidistrict litigation.

The Hartford Life Insurance Co. on the Net: www.thehartford.com.

KOREA: Civil Groups Plan to File Lawsuit Over Air Pollution-----------------------------------------------------------The Seoul Air Pollution Litigation Group, including the Korean Environmental Litigation Center of Green Korea United, and others announced that they will file a lawsuit with the Seoul District Court against the Seoul metropolitan government and automobile makers for damages from air pollution, the Chosun Ilbo reports.

The suit represents some 22 sufferers of breathing or respiratory ailments who live or work in Seoul or have done in the past.

The litigation group plans to seek about $32,000 per plaintiff or about $702,000 total, from the central government and Seoul metropolitan government for "not fulfilling their responsibility to maintain clean air in Seoul" and from automobile companies such as Hyundai Motor Co. Ltd., Kia Motors Corp., and Ssangyong Motor Co. for providing polluting vehicles.

"This suit is to establish the fact that the central government, Seoul metropolitan government, and the automobile companies share responsibility for air pollution," the group said, and that as the parties responsible for pollution they should carry the financial burden for treating respiratory diseases.

A Seoul city government official said they would review the lawsuit before responding.

LCD MANUFACTURERS: Accused of Conspiring to Inflate Prices----------------------------------------------------------Fargo, North Dakota resident, Robert George, filed a lawsuit seeking class-action status in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota against more than 20 electronics companies, accusing makers of liquid crystal display screens of artificially inflating prices, The Associated Press reports.

The complaint said the case "arises out of a long-running nationwide conspiracy" starting as early as Jan. 1, 2002. It resulted in "artificially inflated prices" for such LCD products as flat panel TVs, computer monitors, laptop computers and mobile phones, the lawsuit said.

"Throughout and beyond the class period, defendants and their coconspirators affirmatively and actively concealed their unlawful conduct from plaintiffs, advancing their conspiracy in secret," the complaint said. "Defendants and their coconspirators provided public justifications for price increase and supply constraints that were pretextual and false."

In December, officials announced that LCD makers in Japan and Taiwan were facing probes by trade watchdogs as part of a widening investigation, the report said. At least two companies confirmed they had received subpoenas from regulators in South Korea, the U.S. and Japan.

The suit is "George v. LG Philips LCD Co. Ltd. et al., Case No. 3:07-cv-00022-RSW-KKK," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota under Judge Rodney S. Webb, with referral to Judge Karen K. Klein.

MIDLAND NATIONAL: Hawaii Judge Certifies Lawsuit Over EIA--------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii in Honolulu granted class-action status in a suit filed against Sioux Falls, S.D.-based Midland National Life Insurance Co. over its equity index annuities, InvestmentNews reports.

The class members are all Hawaii residents 65 and older when they purchased Midland EIAs between May 2001 and May 2005. They are estimated at 600 to 700.

The suit is "Yokoyama, et al. v. Midland National, Case No. 1:05-cv-00303-JMS-KSC," filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii under Judge J. Michael Seabright with referral to Kevin S.C. Chang.

MORTGAGE LENDERS: Foreclosures to Spur Suits Over Loan Terms------------------------------------------------------------Home foreclosures will lead to a wave of class suits against mortgage lenders who offered mortgages that put off payments for years, The Kiplinger California Letter reports.

Meanwhile, class action lawyers are preparing to go after mortgage lenders in a wave of class actions by borrowers claiming they were deceived about loan terms (Class Action Reporter, Feb. 22, 2007).

These lenders allegedly concealed how high and fast interest rates could rise on some adjustable rate mortgages, leaving borrowers in shock later on.

Most suits will cover subprime borrowers, mostly low-incomers who claim they didn't realize how fast future payments would increase.

On Oct. 14, 2005, Jennifer Karpiuk filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on behalf of a purported class of participants in various Northwest-sponsored retirement plans, alleging violations of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. On Nov. 3, 2005, Neil Hastings filed a nearly identical complaint with the Minnesota District Court.

On April 7, 2006, various participants in Northwest Airlines-sponsored retirement and pension plans filed a complaint in theU.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of a purported class of participants in the Plans, alleging ERISA violations. The plaintiffs are:

TIME WARNER: N.Y. Court Declines to Approve "Parker" Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York declined to grant final approval to a settlement reached in a purported nationwide class action filed against Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., and Time Warner Cable.

The suit, "Andrew Parker and Eric DeBrauwere, et al. v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P. and Time Warner Cable," alleges that the company sold its subscribers' personally identifiable information and failed to inform subscribers of their privacy rights in violation of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 and common law. The plaintiffs are seeking damages and declaratory and injunctive relief.

On Aug. 6, 1998, the company filed a motion to dismiss, which was denied on Sept. 7, 1999. On Dec. 8, 1999, the company filed a motion to deny class certification, which was granted on Jan. 9, 2001 with respect to monetary damages, but denied with respect to injunctive relief.

On June 2, 2003, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the court's decision denying class certification as a matter of law and remanded the case for further proceedings on class certification and other matters.

On May 4, 2004, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which Time Warner Cable has opposed. On Oct. 25, 2005, the court granted preliminary approval of a class settlement arrangement on terms that were not material to the company.

A final settlement approval hearing was held on May 19, 2006, and on Jan. 26, 2007, the court denied approval of the settlement.

The suit is "Parker, et al. v. Time Warner Entertai, et al., Case no. 1:98-cv-04265-ILG-JMA," filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York under Judge I. Leo Glasser.

Ms. Dermody received the recognition for her representation of hundreds of thousands of uninsured patients who alleged that Sutter Health charged them excessive and unfair prices for medical treatment and engaged in aggressive and unfair collections practices.

In 2006, the Honorable David W. Abbott of the Sacramento Superior Court granted final approval to a class action settlement resolving claims regarding pricing and collection practices for uninsured patients at all of Sutter Health's affiliate hospitals, which resolves all claims against Sutter and its affiliated hospitals (Dec. 14, 2006).

As part of the settlement, class members will be entitled to make a claim for refunds or deductions of between 25% to 45% from their prior hospital bills.

As a result of plaintiffs' litigation against Sutter Health, the hospital chain entered into a precedent-setting and comprehensive settlement that provided substantial monetary relief for all uninsured patient class members and required all of Sutter's 23 hospital affiliates to lower their prices for all uninsured patients going forward.

"After a heated legal battle," the California Lawyer stated, "the Sacramento-based hospital chain agreed in August [2006] to make available $276 million in refunds or deductions to qualified Sutter patients. It also agreed to maintain more compassionate collections for uninsured patients who fall behind in their payments and to continue providing free or greatly discounted care to low-income patients."

Ms. Dermody is one of 43 attorneys in 17 areas of legal practice that received CLAY awards for their extraordinary achievements in 2006. The lawyers selected as Attorneys of the Year, as noted by the California Lawyer, "changed the law, substantially influenced public policy or the profession, or achieved a remarkable victory for a client or for the public."

In addition to her case work, Ms. Dermody is a committed attorney in the legal community. Her many leadership roles include membership on the Board of Directors of the Bar Association of San Francisco and Co-Chair of the American Bar Association Labor and Employment Law Section Committee on Equal Opportunity in the Legal Profession.

Ms. Dermody recently finished a two-year term as Co-Chair of the Board of Directors of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and prior to that she served as Co-Chair of the Board of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area.

GLOBALSTAR INC: Klafter & Olsen Announces Securities Suit Filing----------------------------------------------------------------Klafter & Olsen LLP has been retained to commence a securities fraud class action against Globalstar Inc. and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of investors who purchased the publicly traded securities of Globalstar during the period from November 2, 2006 through February 5, 2007.

The suit claims Globalstar and certain of its officers and directors violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by misrepresenting and failing to disclose the following material adverse facts:

(i) that the performance of the company's power amplification communication system antennas on its global satellite system was degrading at an accelerated rate; and

(ii) as such, the commercial usefulness of the satellites was declining at an accelerated rate.

On Feb. 5, 2007, Globalstar disclosed that its power amplification communication system antennas were degrading at a greater rate than that disclosed in connection with Globalstar's November 2006 IPO, by which the Company sold 7.5 million shares at $17 per share.

On this news, shares of the company's stock fell $4.08 per share, or 28 percent, to close on February 6, 2007 at $10.40 per share, on nearly 20 times the average three month volume.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 10, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Announces Securities Lawsuit-------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces that a securities class action has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of shareholders who purchased the common stock of NovaStar Financial, Inc. between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007.

The complaint alleges that defendants violated federal securities laws by issuing material misrepresentations to the market concerning the company's business and financial performance, thereby artificially inflating the price of NovaStar securities.

Interested parties may move the court no later than April 24, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

NOVASTAR FINANCIAL: Lerach Coughlin Files Securities Lawsuit------------------------------------------------------------Class Action Law News announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on behalf of purchasers of NovaStar Financial, Inc. (NYSE:NFI) common stock during the period between May 4, 2006 and Feb. 20, 2007.

The complaint charges NovaStar and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

NovaStar operates as a specialty finance company that originates, purchases, invests in and services residential nonconforming loans.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements regarding the company's business and financial results.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(a) the company lacked requisite internal controls, and, as a result, the company's projections and reported results issued during the Class Period were based upon defective assumptions about loan delinquencies;

(b) the company's financial statements were materially misstated due to its failure to properly account for its allowance for loan losses;

(c) given the deterioration and the increased volatility in the subprime market, the company would be forced to tighten its underwriting guidelines which would have a direct material negative impact on its loan production going forward; and

(d) given the increased volatility in the lending market, the company had no reasonable basis to make projections about its ability to maintain its Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT) taxable income, which drives dividends, and potentially even its very status as a REIT.

As a result, the company's projections issued during the Class Period about its REIT taxable income and dividends were at a minimum reckless.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of NovaStar common stock during the Class Period. The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

As a result of defendants' false statements, NovaStar stock traded at artificially inflated prices during the Class Period, reaching a high of $37.59 per share in May 2006.

On Feb. 20, 2007, after the markets closed, NovaStar announced disappointing fourth quarter and year-end 2006 results and further warned that the company expected to earn little, if any, taxable income in the next five years.

On this news, NovaStar's stock collapsed to close at $10.10 per share on Feb. 21, 2007, a one-day decline of 42%, on volume of 22.4 million shares, 15 times the average three-month volume.

OPENWAVE SYSTEMS: Bernstein Litowitz Announces Securities Suit--------------------------------------------------------------Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP announces that a class action has been commenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on behalf of all persons or entities who purchased or acquired the common stock of Openwave Systems Inc. (NASDAQ: OPWV) between Sept. 30, 2002 to Oct. 26, 2006.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Openwave and the Individual Defendants violated the federal securities laws by publicly issuing false and misleading statements.

The complaint further alleges that the Company improperly accounted for grants of stock options, which were backdated to provide the company's executives with unreported benefits.

Specifically, the complaint alleges that defendants Openwave, David C. Peterschmidt, Harold L. Covert, Donald Listwin, and Alan Black violated Section 10(b) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder and the Individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of the U.s. Exchange Act.

Openwave has admitted that certain of its option grants were improperly backdated, and, as a result, it is required to correct its previously reported finances by taking additional charges of $182 million.

Interested parties may move the Court no later than 60 days from February 26, 2007 for lead plaintiff appointment.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.